Clearly there were many scientists supporting the ice age idea, or all of those articles would not have been published. Perhaps there was not a majority support among the climatology scientists, but there certainly was some support, unless you are claiming a large conspiracy. Is that what you are claiming?
Some conspiracy of the press to present faulty science? But, let's talk about what you have acknowledged. You admit that the media makes mountains out of scientific molehills?
If not, do you have any explanation for the number of articles? If that is the case, what about AGW? The IPCC admits no link between AGW and extreme weather, yet all I hear on the news is about drought being caused by AGW.
The crop production is increasing faster than the population, yet all I hear is how AGW is killing crops. Fact is that either the peer reviewed journal articles are CRAP or there is a LOT of exaggeration being done by the media. And evidently you actually know this occurs.
One thing that is pretty clear, is that you have never had to do a literature review. You seem to think you go to Google scholar and you have easy access to finding everything in the literature from the 70s. That is a laughable suggestion to anyone who has done literature reviews.
I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.